Jason Peck
Background * Libertarian running for Kansas House, 24th, in 2006 * http://candidate.lpks.org/Default.aspx?alias=candidate.lpks.org/jasonpeck Political Stance Jason works as a Senior Programmer / Analyst for Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company. When not working, he enjoys spending time with his family, (Alice Scott, her daughter Sarah Padilla, his son Kenneth and his daughter Krystal). He is a motorcycle enthusiast, a lifelong competitive shooter, hunter, fisherman, and enjoys all types of outdoor activities. Jason plans on focusing on the following priorities during the upcoming campaign. * Continue efforts to pass a constitutional amendment preventing eminent domain abuse. Jason strongly supports HB 5025, a firm resolution to protect private property owners' rights. * Introducing legislation to allow Kansas to opt out of "No Child Left Behind" and regain control of its public schools. * Introducing legislation to eliminate the sales tax on food products. This is a regressive tax on the poor and elderly, and the income tax rebate intended to offset the tax is ineffective. Issues No Child Left Behind, or No Child Gets Ahead? The ability to effectively regulate (or not regulate) education is one of the last bastions of states' rights. Even this last area of state control is falling victim to micromanagement by Washington, however. The federal government has once again decided to overextend its constitutional authority by dictating the terms of states' education programs. This is not done overtly, of course, as it would certainly be a violation of the 10th amendment. It is done with the old carrot-and-stick routine used so often by our federal legislators. How does the carrot and stick routine work? Simple. The federal government takes our money in the form of taxes, then decides whether or not to give it back based on our compliance with their agenda. In the case of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), states must develop plans for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) that receive the federal stamp of approval for all schools that receive title 1 federal funding. Although title 1 funding constitutes a very small percentage of school districts income (just over 1% of the Shawnee-Mission School District's income, for example), other federal fund schedules are based on the amount of title 1 money, and could be reduced as a result of loss of title 1 monies. This amount is meager, however, compared to the cost of NCLB compliance. According to the NEA, the true costs of implementing the NCLB has been estimated for several states. Those figures are: Connecticut- $41.6 million, Hawaii- $191 million, Minnesota- $19 million, New Hampshire- $224 million, Ohio- $1.4 billion, Texas $1.18 billion, Utah- $1.19 billion, and Vermont- $106.6 million. The predictable effects of the NCLB have been numerous. First of all, schools have experienced a tremendous increase in administrative overhead with no increase in federal funding to compensate. It is for this reason that the NCLB is often referred to as an unfunded mandate. States must achieve compliance before they are eligible for an increase in funding. Secondly, a great deal of time is spent preparing just for AYP test itself. Resources that used to go to teaching kids on an individual level are now spent trying to get kids to pass a one-size-fits-all program that doesn't take individual needs into consideration. In addition to the time spent preparing for the test, a great deal of money is spent purchasing study materials for the test, and in some cases hiring private firms to come into the district to help kids pass. Third, the test does not measure progress. Instead, it takes a snap shot of where students are academically, based on purely arbitrary standards. The standards are constantly in flux, and furthermore are not consistent from state to state. This leaves no reliable way to gauge a student's progress, especially if he or she has just moved into the state, or even the country. An entire school district can be punished because one of its schools fails to meet AYP. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including, as in a recent case in the Shawnee Mission School District, a subgroup of Hispanic students who did not meet AYP in math at Northwest. Fourth, many see the NCLB as an attempt to discredit public education in an effort to advance a voucher agenda. By setting unrealistic standards, schools are set up for failure. Part of the NCLB allows districts to eventually be taken over, even by private organizations, if they fail to meet AYP. When this happens, we will in effect be funding private corporations with our tax dollars, and those corporations will then be mere puppets of the federal government just as our schools are now. Lastly, the NCLB reduces local oversight. The yardstick for school quality has become the standards enacted by the state, as approved by the federal government, rather than local school boards working closely with the state, as it used to be in Kansas. By reducing local control, we are tying the hands of our administrators, many of whom have found better ways to measure progress through tools available on the open market. The NCLB is extremely unpopular with our educators. Most are opposed to it; however they fear the loss of funds that their school could possibly incur should it be deemed non-compliant. As shown above, the cost of implementing NCLB could very plausibly be greater than the loss of federal funding. Moreover, there is no guarantee of losing federal funding should the state opt out of NCLB. The state of Utah has successfully taken back control of its education by writing its own plan, independent of NCLB requirements. Thus far they have not lost any federal funds. Although it is possible that some funds could be reduced should the state of Kansas choose to opt-out, the amount of that loss would not be catastrophic, and it could be made up else ware. Legalizing all forms of gambling at the Woodlands and using a percentage of the profits for education would be a start in the right direction. We also need to confront a disturbing but very real problem with funding of all programs. The federal government, as well as the state of Kansas' government needs to face the fact that it can no longer continue to borrow and spend money at the pace it has been. With the national debt approaching $9 trillion, every U.S. family now owes over $500,000.00 in total government obligations. Additionally, every Kansas citizen owes over $1,400 on behalf of the State of Kansas. Kansas has gone from the least in debt state to the most in debt state in just 10 years. It is now more than twice as far in debt as its nearest competitor for this dubious distinction, Texas. Furthermore, when we consider that the Shawnee-Mission School district now charges the taxpayers of Kansas over $10,000.00 per year per pupil, but the average cost of a good private schools is less than half that, funding seems to be even less of a concern. What good is an expensive education if our graduation present to our children is enslavement to a crushing debt? It's time we realized that the NCLB has been a dismal failure. We need to return control of school standards to the state and local school boards. In doing so, we take a risk of losing some federal funds; however the quality of our kids' education will actually improve as a result of more individual attention and more accurate measurement of performance. Jason E. Peck Libertarian for Kansas House, 24th district candidate.lpks.org/jasonpeck 913-221-2657 Personal Responsibility * Individual Liberty Why do we tax groceries? The Kansas Legislature failed to revise the food sales income tax rebate this year. The rebate is intended to offset the amount of tax paid on groceries by Kansans most in need. The rebate has not been revised or adjusted for inflation since 1998, and was insufficient even then. HB 2972 did not make it through the legislature before the end of session, though it received the backing of the Kansas Catholic Conference, the AARP, and Kansas Action for Children. The way the rebate works is described on the state's tax form instructions as follows: If your qualifying income is $13,800 or less, your food sales tax refund is $72 for each dependent in your household. For example, if your income is less than $13,800 and you are claiming 2 dependents, your food sales refund would be $144. If your qualifying income is greater than $13,800, but not over $27,600, your food sales tax refund is $36 for each dependent in your household. For example, if your income is between $13,801 and $27,600 and you are claiming 2 dependents, your food sales refund would be $72. If your qualifying income is greater than $27,600, you are not eligible to receive a food sales tax refund. In addition to the requirementes above, you must be born before 1955 and/or be legally blind to receive the credit. Given the sales tax rate in Overland Park is 7.525%, and Assuming a single retired person spends $250.00 per month on groceries, this amounts to $3,000.00 annually. Assume the person earns $12,000.00 per year. 7.525% of 3,0000.00 is $225.75, meaning the lowest income bracket still pays $146.75 per year (225.75 - 78.00) in food sales tax. That's nearly an entire month's worth of groceries, which amounts to a very regressive tax. Currently only 16 states tax their citizens' groceries. It's time that Kansas joined the ranks of those states that do not tax a basic necessity of life, making life more difficult for its most economically challenged citizens. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse! The right to own private property is one of the most basic precepts of a free society. Without private property, there can be no freedom. Ownership, particularly of a home, has long been thought of as a sacred right of Americans. There are instances where public usage needs outweigh the rights of an individual, however. For this reason, the writers of our U.S. constitution included a clause in the fifth amendment known as "eminent domain". Eminent domain has allowed for roads, bridges, hunting preserves, and railroads to be implemented, all of which are created for public use. At some point in our nation's history, around 1950, courts began to interpret the meaning of "public use" as "public benefit". This may seem like a shade of grey, but when a bulldozer is leveling your house, it suddenly becomes a little more clear. "Public benefit" can be construed to mean nearly anything, from more taxes to a prettier storefront. When one citizens property is taken by the government (even with compensation), and sold to another citizen, this amounts to eminent domain abuse. Kansas currently ranks as the second worse abuser of eminent domain in the entire country. Numerous cases of abuse have been documented, from the Target warehouse in Topeka, to Baron BMW in Merriam, to the Kansas Speedway in KCK. In each of these cases, the government took private property from one person and gave it to another, against the original owner's will. The excuses for this are numerous, but usually boil down to the almighty dollar. In the case of Baron BMW, the city council simply sold out. The owner of the original land was using it for his own car dealership, and counting on it to fund his retirement. The Libertarian Party recently worked hand-in-hand with the Representative Frank Miller (R-Independence) to draft HCR 5025 (later HB 5025). This is a bill that would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to put a stop to eminent domain abuse in Kansas. We strongly believe that the amendment would easily pass in the general election; however it will never see the light of day because some of our current legislators do not wish to "impede economic progress" (translation: stop the plunder). Among those who voted against this bill are Representative Edward O'Malley (R-24th dist). The legislature then passed a "watered down" version of HB 5025, which requires the state's approval before eminent domain could be exercised. This accomplishes nothing, since the abuse can continue to occur under the new law. It's just a matter of whom the corporate interests choose to wine-and dine: city officials, or state officials. At best it slows the process down, at worst it's an election-year stunt that can be undone with another legislative vote. The bottom line: it's not the government's decision to make. Your house and/or property should not be for sale to the highest bidder against your will. HB 5025 needs to be heard again in the Kansas House. The plunder of private property must be put to a stop. Peck